"She said she had been tipped off about the dinner. “We had reports from former hostesses that women weren’t treated very well,” she said. That prompted her to pitch the story to editors at the Times, who gave the go-ahead for an undercover operation only after considering alternatives, she said. "

I couldn't tell from the linked article- were there already rumors of bad behavior that the journalist was confirming? I must be old, because when I read about a men's-only party, the dress code for the "hostesses," and warnings of "annoying" behavior, the party turned out pretty much like I would expect. That doesn't make it right, just not surprising.

There were more issues than that, for example the reports say that the women were made to sign NDAs that they weren't allowed to read or take a copy of, their phones were confiscated, and some were approached about prostitution, which is illegal. When one of the guests walked out in disgust and an experienced waitress and hostess reported being terrified, it sounds like it went a bit further than a lads' night out.

(Also part of the Professional Darwinism: the BBC report that they were caught auctioning gifts that they did not have a right to - including allegedly, a non-transferrable dinner with the Bank of England's governor, that had been sold by a different charity. The Bank of England are not impressed.)

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! The CEO and Founder of SCOTTeVEST (that's not me shouting, that's how the name is printed in the article) is being forced out of his daily duties due to a stupid twitter post.

I couldn't tell from the linked article- were there already rumors of bad behavior that the journalist was confirming? I must be old, because when I read about a men's-only party, the dress code for the "hostesses," and warnings of "annoying" behavior, the party turned out pretty much like I would expect. That doesn't make it right, just not surprising.

There were more issues than that, for example the reports say that the women were made to sign NDAs that they weren't allowed to read or take a copy of, their phones were confiscated, and some were approached about prostitution, which is illegal. When one of the guests walked out in disgust and an experienced waitress and hostess reported being terrified, it sounds like it went a bit further than a lads' night out.

(Also part of the Professional Darwinism: the BBC report that they were caught auctioning gifts that they did not have a right to - including allegedly, a non-transferrable dinner with the Bank of England's governor, that had been sold by a different charity. The Bank of England are not impressed.)

One of the other auction lots was apparently vouchers for plastic surgery to 'spice up your wife'....urgh.

At first, I wondered why, if they wanted the hostesses to act as sex workers, they didn't just hire professionals. Then, I realized, no professional would work so cheap.

Well, there's the "plausible deniability" aspect. "No, we didn't hire sex workers! We're a respectable charity. We hired professional young women from a reputable agency ... then stuffed them into tiny minidresses and had security drag them out of the loo when they hid in there too long. Go ahead, ask them. They won't complain - because we've got them tied up with NDAs."

It really breaks my heart when it seems so many men in public life still see women as commodities, not as human beings. And as cheaply-procurable ones as well.

Several beneficiaries of The President's Club charity are reportedly handing back donations, including Great Ormand Street Hospital (GOSH) which is world-renowned for treating sick children. What say you, eHellions, to handing back the money?

Several beneficiaries of The President's Club charity are reportedly handing back donations, including Great Ormand Street Hospital (GOSH) which is world-renowned for treating sick children. What say you, eHellions, to handing back the money?

Refusing a donation from a given source is a perfectly acceptable way to condemn that source's actions/membership.

Several beneficiaries of The President's Club charity are reportedly handing back donations, including Great Ormand Street Hospital (GOSH) which is world-renowned for treating sick children. What say you, eHellions, to handing back the money?

I don't know how I would / should look at it if I had to make such a decision.

On the one hand, money is money and the hospital (or any other charity) really needs it. I'm sure any amount of money can do a lot of good for a hospital or homeless shelter and the people they help.

On the other hand, that money was obtained by abusing people / under false pretense, so it's kind of "dirty" and I understand a charity wanting nothing to do with it. They don't want to lose their reputation by association and dry up funding coming from somewhere else.

Maybe in an ideal world, the money that was collected could be returned to the hired waitresses. It would never erase the experience, but at least the guilty parties will not profit from it.

Logged

"It's not the years in your life that count, it's the life in your years." - Office coffee cup.

In Canada, a local "Men's night out" faced criticism after someone from the media attended and managed to get a few seconds of video of women dancing on tables. The event was to give several thousand dollars to a local hospital and they refused the money. I say good for them for taking a moral stand. I think future events have now been cancelled as well.

A very similar situation happened in Saskatoon, SK in December - right down to scantily clad dancers and charities giving funds back. One of the more delayed charities in responding was a Catholic Hospital. Originally they said that it wasn't their job to police fundraising but it sounds like the diocese and the bishop stepped in and fed them the "it doesn't align with Christian values" line.

The organizers of the event also initially came out saying the event was mis-characterized but by the very next day they had to announce that they'd never do it again.

I think that people should probably pull their heads out of their bums in a hurry - too many men (and it's mostly men) are still completely fouling up the responses to these types of things. It really shows that they have no concept of how their behaviour is inappropriate and that they can't just "aw shucks; boys will be boys" their way out of trouble anymore. I, for one, welcome the shift.

Yesterday, 2 (TWO!!) leaders of provincial Conservative parties were forced to resign due to allegations of sexual misconduct. (Nova Scotia and Ontario) One of them has a long, well-known history of this behaviour going back decades. The whisper network about him, both in his home town and among the politicos was immense. The whisper network used to be the only way that women could help protect eachother. Now, they're finally brave enough to come forward. Thankfully, sexual harassment and assault is finally becoming a method of PD. Finally.

It's reported that the programme for the Presidents Club bash included a full-page notice stating that the Club accepted no responsibility or liability for any actions of the attendees that amounted to harassment. Which reminds me more than somewhat of the old story that in the USA in the Prohibition era you could buy mail-order home winemaking kits, and to cover the sellers legally they would include a information sheet with the kit stating 'On no account place the contents in your bathtub and add sugar and yeast, as fermentation will result.'

Several beneficiaries of The President's Club charity are reportedly handing back donations, including Great Ormand Street Hospital (GOSH) which is world-renowned for treating sick children. What say you, eHellions, to handing back the money?

Well, my first thought was that I'm not sure they can return the donations. Charities have specific legal status and their trustees have legal responsibilities, they can't just give away money which has been donated. So ethically, they may not want to keep the donations, but legally they will need to tread very carefully and probably get advice from the Charities Commission which regulates UK charities before doing anything.